##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL WRIT PETITION No. 49694 of 2025 DAULAT RAM ENGINEERING SERVICES LTD. AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ajay Gupta Senior Advocate with Shri Rajeev Mishra - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Qasim Ali - Advocate for respondent [INT].

Shri Navtej Singh Ruprah - Advocate for respondent [caveat].

Shri Satya Prakash Mishra - Advocate for respondent No.2.

Shri Anubhav Jain - Government Advocate for respondent/State.

WITH WRIT PETITION No. 32213 of 2025 ADEEL SIDDIQUI AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Qasim Ali - Advocate for petitioners.

Shri Anubhav Jain - Govrenemtn Advoccate for respondent /State.

Shri Satya Prakash Mishra and Satya Prakash Mishra learned counsel for respondent No. 6, 7 and 8.

ORDER Per: Pradeep Mittal J. (Heard and reserved on : 12.08.2026.)

(Pronounced on : 31.08.2026.)

This common judgment disposes of two connected writ petitions W.P.

No.49694/2025 (Daulatram Engineering Services Ltd. & Anr. v. MPPTCL & Ors.) and W.P. No. 32213/2025 (Adeel Siddiqui & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.) both of which arise out of, and impugn different facets of, the same project for the second circuit stringing of the 132 KV DCSS Mandideep Nahar Transmission Line, and raise common questions as to the scope of the power exercised under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The two petitions were accordingly heard together and are decided by this common judgment, the facts of each being set out separately below.

2. W.P. No.49694/2025 assails the Notification dated 10.06.2024, published on 05.07.2024 (Annexure P/4), by which Respondent No.2/MPPTCL sanctioned the second circuit stringing of the 132 KV DCSS Mandideep Nahar Transmission Line, and also assails the consequential Order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P/10) passed by Respondent No.5/Collector, Raisen under Section 10 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, permitting the line to be laid for supply of electricity to the new unit of Nahar Poly Films Ltd. The petitioners therein seek a writ of certiorari quashing both, together with a direction to stop construction over their premises in Village Simrai, Mandideep, and interim protection pending final disposal.

3. Petitioner No.1/Daulatram Engineering Services Ltd. owns 0.809 hectares of land (Khasra Nos.10/2/Ka/1 and 10/2/Ka/2) in Village Simrai, on which it has run a railway components manufacturing unit since 2003. Petitioner No.2/Nasa Corporation owns 1.875 hectares in the same village (Khasra Nos.10/3/2/1 to 10/3/2/4), on which it has manufactured heat exchange equipment since 2013.

4. Of the thirteen towers sanctioned under the impugned alignment (Annexure R-2/5), only Tower Nos.7 and 8 situated 236 meters apart concern the petitioners. Tower No.8 stands on Petitioner No.2's land, while no tower is proposed on Petitioner No.1's frontage. An earlier alignment, which would have placed Tower Nos.8 and 9 on the opposite side of the road, was examined and rejected by the technical expert team of Respondent No.2 by letter dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure R/2-11), since Tower AP-8 in that alignment would have stood only 3.5 meters from an existing gas pipeline, in violation of Regulation 63(1) of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2023. It was only thereafter, in the absence of any other alternative, that the presently impugned alignment passing over the petitioners' frontage and parking areas came to be sanctioned.

5. Petitioner No.1's notice dated 20.11.2025 (Annexure P/13)

proposing a further alternate route was declined, that route being found to run over residential accommodation and to breach the pipeline clearance once again. When Petitioner